I agree - years ago there was advice for sprucing up your resume after you had been out of the workforce for a while by adding "household engineer". I don't know if that worked so well for people trying it but I know it wouldn't have impressed me if I saw it.

I wouldn't be impressed by that either, and I am someone who had an 8-year gap in employment due to being a SAHM for those years. The best one can do is include as complete a work history as necessary and be honest about the gap.

I agree that being a SAHM is not a "job" in the employment sense. It is a job in the sense that it is a responsibility, an execution of work of some type. While I was staying home, if someone asked if I had a job, I would have said no, in the sense that I was not working for an employer nor self-employed; however, I can see saying (accurately), "My job right now is staying home with the kids."

The disconnect may come in how people define "job" (a task one takes on vs. an occupation for which one is hired or contracts for in order to earn pay).

People who volounteer their services for companies,schools,health services etc; dont get paid for their work. Should that not be counted as a job since they do it by choice,LOVE their job and dont get a paycheck ?

I would say any divorcee or beaten down housewife who has ever been swapped for a new version, been abused for not cleaning the house properly or had their partner/inlaw/parent/friend run them over the coals over something they dont agree with or arent "doing right" on a regular basis would gladly tell you that at times its very much like employement. Especially if they arent valued as a respected partner.

As I said before....every household dynamic is different. Making statements and opinions on our experiences all due to your definition of a word is hardly fair. You arent them. You dont live in their home or household or have their experience. Please dont insist that they cant use the word because you dont view it that way.

I'm friends with a lovely couple, who don't yet have kids, but when they do the wife is going to continue with her career and her husband is planning to stay home with the kids. It's the best choice for their family - he's much more of a nurturer where she would be miserable every day if she had to raise kids. Also, she makes about twice what he does and is in line for a *huge* promotion soon. Even so, you wouldn't believe the comments they get for him planning to be a SAHF. I mean, SAHM's get snarky, snide comments, sure, but people seem to be actually insulted by the idea of a SAHF.

Sort of off the point of that story - I think that's a good example of how feminism, properly applied, is good for men as well as women. I don't think they would have been able to make that choice before the women's movement, not that it's an easy choice for them even now.

Logged

"I've never been a millionaire, but I just know I'd be darling at it." - Dorothy Parker

I had an excellent support system since my parents lived a mile and a half down the road and I worked a night shift and early morning shift. (not possible for a lot of people). My daughter was a hard working *******, my son a dancing in the daisies ******* but I tried to be home for them every afternoon. Sleeping in between.

It's making me nuts that I can't figure out what ******* is supposed to stand for.

Well, not quite nuts, but I would very much like to know, too, so I'm quoting for updates.

I agree that SAHM/SAHW is not a job, persay, but it is an important role in society.

I volunteer at the animal shelther, and I wouldn't call it a "second job." It's something I love doing, and do for the personal gratification it gives me. I see being a stay-at-home homemaker the same way. It is (hopefully) personally gratifying for those who choose to do it, it contributes to society, it's important to those who rely on it, but it's not employment in the strictest sense of the word.

For what it's worth, my DH and I are saving as much as we can so that when we do have a child, I can stay home with it for a few years. I may try to do freelance work from home after half a year or so, but I guess it all depends on how we feel at the point. I would argue with anyone who denigrated my choice, as we are working hard now to be able to afford it, and I don't see why anyone else cares what I choose to do with my time.

The definition of a job is a specific duty and responsibility to do a task that needs to be accomplished. It is an obligation to do work to accomplish said tasks and this may or may not include paid work. There is many definitions of the word, as its examples. It is hardly arbitary to use the word job to define a days work as a sahm wife when your role and tasks fall under this same catagory.

A job is not classified legally,socially or politically as paid employement either. Nor is it classified as having to be an occupation.

Personally, I think that being a SAHM, and doing it well, is one of the most important jobs there is. With that disclaimer out of the way, I disagree with the idea that a SAHP (Stay at Home Parent, because I don't care which gender it is), should be paid a salary. I really do not understand how people think this is supposed to work.

When you perform work that is non-domestic (by which I mean, any work that is not running a household or raising your own children), someone is paying you because your activities help them to make a financial profit, and they pass a fraction of that profit on to you in return (as salary). If you are at home cleaning and maintaining your own household and rearing your own children, who is supposed to pay you? People suggest that 'the government' should pay SAHPs, but the government doesn't have some magic money fountain, it gets its money from the taxpayers. Who only have the money to pay tax *because* they work outside the home.

I am in no way arguing that being a SAHP is not intrinsically valuable, or is not 'real work'. I am merely disagreeing that it's economically feasible for SAHPs to be paid an income in the same way employees outside the home are, although the idea seems to come up a lot in the mainstream media.

I'm no economist, so if anyone can explain how they think this will work, I am all ears.

I think we're getting caught up in semantics when it doesn't really even matter.

If I wanted to be a stay at home wife and do nothing but eat bon-bons all day, and we could afford for me to do that without dipping into taxpayer funds, that's my husbands' and my business. Nobody else has a stake in what I do with my time, so they really have no right to criticize me.

Just like I don't have the right to criticize those people who choose to watch TV instead of volunteering. It's our time our money, we can do whatever we want with it.

So if Piratelvr wants to stay at home with her kid, regardless of how much work it is in comparison to being a working parent/working child-free/stay at home wife, it's her perogative, and it's none of her friends' business.

I think we're getting caught up in semantics when it doesn't really even matter.

If I wanted to be a stay at home wife and do nothing but eat bon-bons all day, and we could afford for me to do that without dipping into taxpayer funds, that's my husbands' and my business. Nobody else has a stake in what I do with my time, so they really have no right to criticize me.

Just like I don't have the right to criticize those people who choose to watch TV instead of volunteering. It's our time our money, we can do whatever we want with it.

So if Piratelvr wants to stay at home with her kid, regardless of how much work it is in comparison to being a working parent/working child-free/stay at home wife, it's her perogative, and it's none of her friends' business.

Sort of off the point of that story - I think that's a good example of how feminism, properly applied, is good for men as well as women. I don't think they would have been able to make that choice before the women's movement, not that it's an easy choice for them even now.

Oh absolutely. There's a popular saying among feminists "The patriarchy hurts men too." Rigid gender roles and stereotypes are bad for everybody.

If you can afford to be a SAHP then you do. If you cant, you get a job to help survive. Personally I dont think I should get paid for being a SAHM, but....I do think the government should be more favourable when it comes to help with childcare and medical as I find alot of people struggle with this even when they are classified high income earners.

Logged

irish1

Personally, I think that being a SAHM, and doing it well, is one of the most important jobs there is. With that disclaimer out of the way, I disagree with the idea that a SAHP (Stay at Home Parent, because I don't care which gender it is), should be paid a salary. I really do not understand how people think this is supposed to work.

When you perform work that is non-domestic (by which I mean, any work that is not running a household or raising your own children), someone is paying you because your activities help them to make a financial profit, and they pass a fraction of that profit on to you in return (as salary). If you are at home cleaning and maintaining your own household and rearing your own children, who is supposed to pay you? People suggest that 'the government' should pay SAHPs, but the government doesn't have some magic money fountain, it gets its money from the taxpayers. Who only have the money to pay tax *because* they work outside the home.

I am in no way arguing that being a SAHP is not intrinsically valuable, or is not 'real work'. I am merely disagreeing that it's economically feasible for SAHPs to be paid an income in the same way employees outside the home are, although the idea seems to come up a lot in the mainstream media.

I'm no economist, so if anyone can explain how they think this will work, I am all ears.

Well, it's good for society if people who wish to be SAHP but cannot afford to are given the means to do so. They are happier and more fulfilled, and they have money which they spend. This benefits the economy and also brings in tax revenue. There are lots of public services that are good for society, but don't bring in extra money. Something's worth is not measured in the money it generates, and a government that made the choice to pay a basic wage to SAHP may find it worth their while. It all depends on the government's priorities I guess. I think it could work out economically, in any case economics is not really about figures, but human motivation.

Personally, I think that being a SAHM, and doing it well, is one of the most important jobs there is. With that disclaimer out of the way, I disagree with the idea that a SAHP (Stay at Home Parent, because I don't care which gender it is), should be paid a salary. I really do not understand how people think this is supposed to work.

When you perform work that is non-domestic (by which I mean, any work that is not running a household or raising your own children), someone is paying you because your activities help them to make a financial profit, and they pass a fraction of that profit on to you in return (as salary). If you are at home cleaning and maintaining your own household and rearing your own children, who is supposed to pay you? People suggest that 'the government' should pay SAHPs, but the government doesn't have some magic money fountain, it gets its money from the taxpayers. Who only have the money to pay tax *because* they work outside the home.

I am in no way arguing that being a SAHP is not intrinsically valuable, or is not 'real work'. I am merely disagreeing that it's economically feasible for SAHPs to be paid an income in the same way employees outside the home are, although the idea seems to come up a lot in the mainstream media.

I'm no economist, so if anyone can explain how they think this will work, I am all ears.

Well, it's good for society if people who wish to be SAHP but cannot afford to are given the means to do so. They are happier and more fulfilled, and they have money which they spend. This benefits the economy and also brings in tax revenue. There are lots of public services that are good for society, but don't bring in extra money. Something's worth is not measured in the money it generates, and a government that made the choice to pay a basic wage to SAHP may find it worth their while. It all depends on the government's priorities I guess. I think it could work out economically, in any case economics is not really about figures, but human motivation.

I think that SAHPs should be supported up until the child starts school (4 here in the UK) and then its not unreasonable to expect that if the family can't get by without that support then the SAHP looks for work.

If so, I have a HUGE problem with being asked to support someone else as they raise a child. One reason I have no children is that I can't afford them. I certainly don't want to subsidize someone else's poor financial choice.